Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Royal Navy under threat

From

ANDREW WILSON

in London

The loss of the destroyer Sheffield has,dealt a more serious blow to Britain's

South Atlantic task force than at first considered. It is not just one ship that has been lost, but effectively three, with the discovery that the French-built Exocet missile can penetrate the defences- of the Type 42 destroyer. There are at least two other ships of this class in the task force — Coventry and Glasgow, In view of the,, disaster to the'Sheffield, they can no longer be used for the vital radar picket duty necessary to warn the task force commander, RearAdmiral Woodward, of the approach of hostile planes. It was this duty that required the Sheffield, one of the Navy’s newest ships and only seven years old, to be stationed in a highly exposed position between the task force and the air bases on the Argentine mainland. In theory, Sheffield should have been able to defend herself against missile attack

by her elaborate electronic counter-measures (E.C.M.) and her Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles.

The Sea Dart has a range of 25 nautical miles, just one mile less than that of the Exocet. The difference might seem small, but the Exocet. originally a ship-to-ship missile, has a considerably extended range when launched from the air, as happened on' Tuesday. ' The fact that two Exocets were sent against the Sheffield, -one of which missed, suggests that the Type 42’s E.C.M. may cope effectively with only one missile at a time, or be very vulnerable to "swamping.” The two Exocets were launched by two French-built Super-Etendard fighters, part of a batch of 14 recently sold to the Argentine Navy by France. Only five were delivered before the European Community's arms ban came into force three weeks ago. and they must operate from land bases until they can be adapted to take off from the Argentine carrier 25th May.

It would now appear that the British ships' only sure defence against Exocet is a very fast, short-range, antimissile missile called Sea Wolf. This is fitted to two frigates in the British task force, but not to the remaining 12 frigates and destroyers. Dispatches from correspondents aboard ships of the task force, though clearly written under some constraint, suggest that the carriers Hermes and Invincible were not very far from the Sheffield at the time of the attack (correspondents aboard both ships speak of seeing the column of smoke from the burning destroyer.) If so. either of the carriers could have fallen victim to the missile if the Sheffield had not presented the stronger image for the radar-homing Exocet as it skimmed the waves at near the speed of sound.

Disclosure of the Sheffield’s position at the time of the attack makes it clear that, on the Tuesday at least, the task force was south of the Falklands — the first clear indication of its whereabouts. The loss of the Sheffield raises questions' about the design of the Type 42 destroyer. The light metals used in her construction are believed to have contributed to the uncontrollable spread of fire. Had the Argentines attacked in greater numbers it is unlikely that the loss of life could have been kept as low as 20. Similarly, British restraint in not attacking the escorts of the General Belgrano permitted the Argentines to rescue the majority of the men aboard their 40-year-old cruiser. Nevertheless, the alarm of America and other allies at

the mounting bloodshed in the South Atlantic has had an impact in London. Within Parliament there has been a perceptible hardening of opposition to the conduct of operations since the sinking of the two ships. Some 70 Labour M.Ps have signed a motion demanding a ceasefire. At the other end of the political spectrum, some Conservative back-benchers, i including Winston Churchill, grandson .of the war-time .statesman, have called for the bombing of Argentine mainland air bases. Much as some naval men would welcome this move in ■ order to remove the air threat to the British fleet, there is widespread recognition that it could spell disaster -r both in further international support for Britain, and in terms of losses to British aircraft flying against 110 Argentine defending planes from Britain's nearest staging post, Ascension Island, 4000 miles away. Copyright —' London Observer Service.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19820514.2.76.3

Bibliographic details

Press, 14 May 1982, Page 13

Word Count
714

Royal Navy under threat Press, 14 May 1982, Page 13

Royal Navy under threat Press, 14 May 1982, Page 13

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert